The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) computer server shows
that Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) won the February
23 election with about 1.6 million votes to defeat President Muhammadu
Buhari, the opposition candidate claims.
This is contained in the petition filed on Monday by the PDP and Mr
Abubakar, to challenge the victory of Mr Buhari and his All Progressives
Congress (APC).
The petition, which sought to rely on 50 sets of documents, was filed
before the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal in Abuja against INEC,
Mr Buhari and the APC respectively.
On February 27, INEC declared that Mr Buhari won the election with
15,191,847 votes to defeat Mr Atiku, whom it said polled 11,262,978 votes.
But the petitioners stated in their 139-page petition that “from the data
in the 1st respondent’s (INEC’s) server…the true, actual and correct
results” from “state to state computation” showed that Mr Abubakar polled
a total of 18,356,732 votes to defeat Mr Buhari whom they said scored
16,741,430 votes.
According to it, the results were the total votes scored by the candidates
in 35 states and the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, as there was “no
report on server” about the results from Rivers State as of February 25.
By this, Mr Abubakar claims to have defeated Mr Buhari with 1,615,302 votes.
One of the five grounds of the petition also tends to resuscitate the
allegation that Mr Buhari was not qualified to run for the office of the
president on the grounds that he did not possess the constitutional
minimum qualification of a school certificate.
The five grounds of the petition read, “The 2nd respondent (Buhari) was
not duly elected by the majority of lawful votes cast at the election.
“The election of the 2nd respondent is invalid by reason of corrupt
practices.
“The election of the 2nd Respondent is invalid by reason of non-compliance
with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).
“The 2nd respondent was at the time of the election not qualified to
contest the said election.
“The 2nd respondent submitted to the 1st Respondent an affidavit
containing false information of a fundamental nature in aid of his
qualification for the said election.”
Arguing that Mr Buhari was not qualified to run for the office of the
president, the petitioners argued in part, “The petitioners state that the
2nd respondent (Buhari) does not possess the educational qualification to
contest the election to the office of the President of Federal Republic of
Nigeria.
“The petitioners state that by Section 31 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2010
(as amended), every political party shall not later than 60 days before
the date appointed for a general election submit to the Commission in the
prescribed form the list of the candidates the party proposes to sponsor
at the elections.
“Further, by Section 31(2) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the
list or information submitted by each candidate shall be accompanied by an
affidavit sworn to by the candidate at the Federal High Court, High Court
of a State or Federal Capital Territory indicating that he has fulfilled
all the constitutional requirements for election into that office.
“The 2nd respondent filled and submitted Form CF001 to the 1st Respondent,
which was declared before the Commissioner for Oaths at the Registry of
the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja on the 8th day of
October 2018. The said Form CF001 is accompanied by an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
indicating that the 1st Respondent received same.
“The petitioners aver that the said Form CF001 filled by the 2nd
Respondent and submitted to the 1st Respondent for the Office of President
was also accompanied by the Curriculum Vitae of the 2nd Respondent as well
as GENERAL FORM OF AFFIDAVIT duly sworn to by the 2nd respondent at the
High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, along with copies of
his Membership Card of the 3rd Respondent and Voter Card.
“The information submitted to the 1st respondent (INEC) by the 2nd
respondent (Buhari) is false and of a fundamental nature in aid of his
education qualification, notwithstanding that he had declared in the said
sworn affidavit as follows: ‘I hereby declare that all the answers, facts
and particulars I have given in this Form, are true and correct and I have
to the best of my knowledge, fulfilled all the requirements for
qualifications for the office I am seeking to be elected’.”
They stated that the educational institutions Buhari “claimed to have
attended and the certificates presented by him namely, Elementary School
Daura and Mai Aduaa between 1948 and 1952, Middle School Katsina between
1953 and 1956 and Katsina Provincial College (now Government College,
Katsina) between 1956 to 1961 and mentioned by the 2nd respondent in his
curriculum vitae attached to Form CF 001, were not in existence as of
those mentioned dates.”
They added, “The 2nd respondent in Form CF 001 filled and submitted by him
to the 1st Respondent at Paragraph C, Column 2, Page 3, under SECONDARY,
wrote “WASC,” thereby falsely claiming that qualification whereas there
was no qualification known as WASC as of 1961.
“The petitioners contend that the 2nd Respondent was, at the material
time, not qualified to contest election for the exalted office of
President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“The petitioners further aver that all votes purportedly cast for the 2nd
and 3rd Respondents on 23rd February 2019 during the Presidential Election
and as subsequently declared by the 1st Respondent on February 27, are
wasted votes in that the 2nd Respondent was not qualified to contest the
said election in the first place or at all.”
The petitioners named 21 Senior Advocates of Nigeria and 18 other lawyers
to appear for them during the petition.
The legal team is led by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Livy Uzoukwu.
They sought among their five main prayers, that the tribunal should
determine that Mr Buhari “was not duly elected by a majority of lawful
votes cast in the said election” and therefore his declaration and return
by INEC “as the President of Nigeria is unlawful, undue, null, void and of
no effect.”
They also prayed that Mr Abubakar having been “duly and validly elected”
ought to be “returned as President of Nigeria, having polled the highest
number of lawful votes cast at the election to the office of the President
of Nigeria held on February 23 and having satisfied the constitutional
requirements for the said election.
They sought “an order directing the 1st respondent (INEC) to issue a
Certificate of Return to the 1st petitioner (Atiku) as the duly elected
President of Nigeria”.
They also asked the tribunal to rule that Mr Buhari “was at the time of
the election not qualified to contest the said election”, and that he
“submitted to the Commission affidavit containing false information of a
fundamental nature in aid of his qualification for the said election”.
However, they sought as their alternative prayer, “that the election to
the office of the president of Nigeria held on February 23, be nullified
and a fresh election ordered.”
The petitioners are relying on 50 sets of documents which they, in the
petition, gave INEC the notice to produce the original copies of those in
its custody.
Some of the documents are, “INEC Nomination Form CF001 of the 2nd
respondent (Buhari); all INEC result sheets;(Form EC8 Series), EC8A, EC8B,
EC8C, EC8D and EC8E – Certificate of Return; PDP Party Membership Cards;
INEC Voter Cards; all witnesses’ party membership cards; and all
Witnesses’ Voter Cards.”
The PDP and Mr Atiku in the petition also sought to rely on, “the
circulars/corrigenda/manuals issued by INEC for the conduct of the
Presidential Election held on 23/2/2019; Polling Unit materials checklist;
summary of total registered voters on units’ basis; summary of PVCs
collected on units’ basis; Voter Registers and letters of complaints about
irregularities and malpractices during the election addressed to the
INEC/Police/other relevant agencies/institutions.”
They also sought to rely on “security reports relating to the election
video/audio recordings/DVD/CD relating to the Election; Election
Observers’ or Observers’ Reports; Newspaper/Television/ Radio reports and
news; appointment letters and tags of PDP agents; expert reports and
analysis; and photographs and GSM and other phone outputs”.
Culled from Premium Times